1600*1200 Gaming. Would you run it at that res if you could?

[Utterman]

I run my games at 1152*864 most of the time because that it the highest my 955DF can get at 85hz refresh rate. I plan to pick up a 900NF or 1200NF, so I can run 1600*1200

Edit: plus dual monitors

 

[randomlinh]

i've been curious, at those high resolutions, what is the in game text like? is it magnified at all (do any games have a "large font" option so to speak)? I actually have a monitor that will do 16x12 now.. i'm just waiting till i can have a system that will play games at that res

 

[jcmkk]

It depends on the game. On some games the text stays the same, and on some it gets small. If you have a monitor that can do 1600x1200, then it should be large enough to see.

 

[BD2003]

1280x960, quincunx AA and 16x AF. Doesnt get much better. Once you kick in FSAA, its pretty hard to tell 1600 from 1280.

 

[gf4200isdabest]

I can but I don't...

1024x768 just looks better on 90% of games because most games look out of whack at that high of a resolution...

 

[ElFenix]

i would assuming i can read things that need read.

 

[Adul]

so far most of us want 1600+ res for gaming

 

[Soulkeeper]

sometimes the high resolutions make things too small to make out
only if the monitor is big enough i say

 

[Adul]

well like i said if monitor support wasnt an issue. 21" monitor

 

[human2k]

I must be belind or something but anything above 800x600 looks about the same to me.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: human2k
I must be belind or something but anything above 800x600 looks about the same to me.

You sir, are blind.

 

[Acanthus]

at 2048x1536, you barely need AA anymore....... thats what i like to game at!

 

[BurnItDwn]

with my current monitors I'd like 1600x1200 for games as they can only do 60hz at 2048x1536 which hurts the eyes.

If i ever upgrado to a nice 21in setup, Id want a card capable of higher though ...

 

[Adul]

2048x1536? good god.

 

[MikeO]

Originally posted by: Wingznut PEZ
Why wouldn't you want to run at the highest res possible?

Exactly.

 

[grumm3t]

I have two problems with running at a 1600*1200:

1) low refresh rates of (most) monitors - unless you are using some very nice hardware, your monitor will usually go 75Hz lower at 1600*1200 and the flicker tends to disturb me.

2) game support - not really as the others mentioned it, but for example, Valve recently added 1600*1200 to the resolution list for Half-Life. Problem with this is that it makes all the text so iddy-biddy I get a headache trying to read stuff. Granted this is fixable by a quick hack, I'm not of a fan of those things.

 

[GrumpyMan]

I game at 1600 X 1200 whenever possible since my monitor can do 85 hz. refresh at that resolution.

 

[techwanabe]

Well,

Games like Icewind Dale and Baldurs Gate have fixed res components... the avatars the maps etc... so the higher the res you go, the smaller they get. That isn't necessarily a good thing.

3D games are scalable so those, yes, like others say, the higher the better. As somehave pointed out in mag articles, higher resolution tends to have an antialiasing effect by itself, so you need FR killing antialiasing much less.

 

[spanky]

if i could, i would.

 

[onelin]

1600x1200 or as high as possible w/ a decent refresh'd be preferred it's exactly the reason I went for a nice 19" that does 1600x1200 @ 85Hz ...hell, if I could keep the speed up, I'd do 1920x1440 @ 75Hz. I've yet to try ultra-high res in gaming as I just got this, but so long as things look ok and the speed is there. (and it definitely should be with the next gen of videocards, if a GF4 is not sufficient)

 

[vash]

My monitor handles 1600x1200 at 85Hz, making it pretty good for FPS games. If I could get a game to handle that resolution at 100+fps constantly, I'd definitely run 16x12.

vash

 

[CubicZirconia]

Hell yes i would, and i damn sure can in just about every game. The only problem is text size gets too small and there needs to be some sort of font scheme that will upsize with resolution changes.

Deus Ex did that.

However, I stick to 1280/960 (1024) since my monitor can't handle higher resolutions.

 

[grant2]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
http://www.overclockers.com/tips064/

"Please note something very important here. In this particular comparison, the Ti4600 is on the other and wrong side of the 24 fps barrier. That's the point where you get the illusion of continuous motion from frames. "

This quote just proves that Ed Stroligo is moron who shouldn't be writing anything about graphics, period.

Evan Lieb, I hope you'll never again post links to his tripe. It's one thing for his obvious bias to turn a rant one-sided. It's quite another for his not-so-obvious ignorance to affect his rants.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: grant2

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
http://www.overclockers.com/tips064/

"Please note something very important here. In this particular comparison, the Ti4600 is on the other and wrong side of the 24 fps barrier. That's the point where you get the illusion of continuous motion from frames. "

This quote just proves that Ed Stroligo is moron who shouldn't be writing anything about graphics, period.

Evan Lieb, I hope you'll never again post links to his tripe. It's one thing for his obvious bias to turn a rant one-sided. It's quite another for his not-so-obvious ignorance to affect his rants.

This thread was started because of that overclockers article, I was just making sure everyone realized this fact. I'm not saying I agree with the guy or anything.

 

[Trashman]

1600x1200 would be cool....but my 17" monitor is holding me back, hopin' to get a 19" someday soon.